digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Home backup server vs. Amazon S3

jeremy.zawodny.com — A comparison by Jeremy Zawodny that show the cost differences between building your own home backup server vs. using Amazon's S3 service. Interesting conversation about the analysis in the comments below.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • magixx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15This guy must work for amazon.

    He only metions good things about it.

    Yes mabey you will save 550$ over 5 years, BUT once those five years are done you still do not have the computer and any of the hardware. That is the advantage of having your own, is that you own it. Also, if your upload speeds suck, good luck on uploading. If you have the other computer in the link on the network, the upload is gonna go 100 times faster.
    • vtrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree. Not to mention the fact that your computer can fail but amazon can also increase prices/remove service, etc.

      A server computer can also do much more things then just backup and can be used by the whole lan and different users.

    • jzawodn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Uhm, no. I work for Yahoo. It'd have taken you about 30 seconds to figure that out.
    • altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Owning the hardware can actually be a liability. Drive life is about 3 - 5 years. So you'll have to replace your drives, the power supply will eventually give out possibly taking your drives with it and what happens in the instance of a fire, earthquake, flood, or break in where your computer is lost or stolen?

      The upload speed could be a bummer but assuming you're not on dial up, an rsync style backup scheme run nightly ought to not be to much of a hassle.

      On the downside I think the real issues look more like; The FBI asks Amazon for your data and Amazon just hands it over; You leave a security hole in your data or don't encrypt some information and somebody steals you; or maybe Amazon decides to use the information you've uploaded as a datasource for some research you didn't explicitely approve and it ends up FILL IN THE BLANK
    • g0tmk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The fact that you have to send your data over the Internet is what worries me. I am assuming most people would use this for a backup method, and I just dont feel comfortable sending all of the data on my computer to amazon..

      plus, upload speeds are horrendously slow compared to speed over a network. Assuming you have even a 1mbit upload speed, it would take 100x longer than on a 100mbit network, and 1000x slower over a gigabit network (in optimal conditions) - I would say it may only be 600x slower on bad days. That's alot slower.

      I would only see this as a benefit if you wanted to store 5gigs or so of non-private data, otherwise the inconveniences outweigh the cost.
    • SDNick484, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The power usage and parts prices seem a bit high; this is at least partially due to using a P4 for a file server. I built a personal media/email server with roughly the same amount of space (2 500GB in RAID 1, versus 3 250GB in I presume RAID 5) and using a low power Via C3 800MHz CPU/Mobo/VGA combo flexATA board from newegg. The addition to my power bill (I'm also in California, so PG&E) is roughly $5-6/mo and the server cost less than half to build last year. The small form factor machine is almost silent, with the 80mm fan being the PSU. The performance of the machine is more than adequate (I use Fedora Core 5) and share files via NFS/CIFS, audio via daap/slimserver, and run postfix/spamassassin/clamav/amavisd/horde for email.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just encrypt everything and send it to Amazon, what's the problem? Re: him working at Yahoo.. I should know, at my last job we read all of zawodny's stuff on mysql + perl client side replication. I believe we started using his client-side perl code for mysql access.

      Thank god I'm outa there and I now use java+postgres+slony! It doesn't get any better than this.
    • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0OK, so he didn't take into account that you still own the hardware in the "do it at home" case. That's easy to fix: knock $50 off his estimated savings. A five year old used PC is not worth very much.
    • DJMajickman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He also failed to include the cost of the initial upload of data to the server. And how many days would it take to send roughly 125GB of data to Amazon and have it verified that the server received everything. Also how long would it take to get the data back in the event that your home system crashed compared to over a 10/100/1000 internal network connection. I've personally seen what happens when people use over the Internet backup services and it's not pretty.
  • altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been thinking of doing this myself. I prolly oughta just get with the program and do it.
  • thespace, on 10/29/2007, -8/+4http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html

    I like time machine better
    • seanmc303, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I prefer 5.25 " floppies.
    • kturner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How well does Time Machine work on XP/Vista/Linux? (I'm typing this on a MBP, but there are OTHER platforms...)

      And what if your Mac's HD fails??
    • DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6what if your HD fails? Go back in time and restore from before it crashed. Duh!
    • alexandreracine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kturner and DontSayFanboy
    • patangay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yea, MacOSX time machine is great until your Mac harddrive fails :-P

      Then?

      S3 has privacy policies, so, personal data is always personal, the problem is if you have illegal things on your backups.. simple solution, delete all your warez.

      And he is just talking about backup servers, NOT production/development servers. Those, you will probably still run in house or at hosting providers.
      • ka2err, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1> Yea, MacOSX time machine is great until your Mac harddrive fails

        Yea, then you click on the timemachine icon and restore from the timemachine backup on your EXTERNAL harddisk. Even if you have to do a fresh install of the OS on a new, fresh harddrive you can use the timemachine backup, because TM backs up to your EXTERNAL harddrive, SAN-Device or Time-Capsule.

        It's not perfect but works for most of us.

        k2r.
        (Backing up his Filevault-Encrypted MBP to an encrypted backup on the Timecapsule. Yes, it's possible.)
  • kturner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He also fails to mention that geeks sometimes LIKE to admin their box. And home servers also have more than one function. My file server also handles all my torrents, ftp server, Dynmanic DNS, and DNS.

    S3 would be perfect for the offsite backup. Your server backups aren't going to do squat when you burn the house down.
  • Webwonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Amazon's S3 and EC2 are interesting solutions for those comfortable with roll-your-own solutions, but not a good idea unless you know what you're doing. If you're not vigilant, your data could wind up getting exposed, especially if you stop using the service. See this link for some scary examples:

    http://www.isabelwang.com/2006/10/your_data_is_no.html

  • lolwtfhaha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here's my combo I use for myself and family members:
    server: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
    connectivity: http://openvpn.net/
    client tools: http://www.cygwin.com/ (rsyncd daemon)

  • Sheaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some info from Smugmug's CEO (a bit dated):

    http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/2006/08/12/amazon-s3-the-holy-grail/
  • Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But he doesn't consider the fact that a lot of people (especially on Digg) have extra computers laying around, and could also use an existing harddrive or buy a cheap one when there is a sale at BB/CC/NewEgg/Frys. Also, what about the people who don't pay more for using a lot of electricity?

    Then it basically costs you nothing. Also, even if you do need to buy/built a computer, you can get a Dell with an 160GB harddrive for $329 (or just be smart and built one yourself). You don't need a fast computer for this stuff.
  • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just set up 2.5tb of RAID-5 network attached storage at home (Thecus N5200R). Got lots of room to grow and own the entire thing. It _was_ moderately expensive, but the peace of mind of a nice RAID setup, as well as having all of my media/files located in one spot is pretty nice.

    Not to mention that the file transfers are ~20mb/sec to the server. As opposed to ~60k/sec with my DSL. Easy choice.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice. And if you did RAID-10 then you'd have 40MB/sec transfer rates(but with only 1.25TB, but that is still quite a bit). Does the Thecus use iSCSI? If so I'd prefer AOE with Coraid. Still, a decent RAID card(areca) and a bunch of disks would be sufficient, plus you can get past the 125MB/sec limitation of gigabit ethernet.
    • golgo13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What happens when, god forbid, your house burns down?
    • Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thats why I use Cobian Backup to create a zip of my most precious files. I then have Cobian automatically encrypt that zip, and then FTP it to my webhosting server (which is in a different part of the country). I would recommend using DreamHost for anyone who needs the space and does not want to spend much money. Be sure to use the 9999 coupon to get $99.99 off of a yearly plan (making the cost of the hosting about $20/year for a ton of space and bandwidth).
  • dotcom101010, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I am running a home server and i love the fact that i control everything is does.
    My server is used for more then just file sharing i use active directory so that every computer has the same stuff i only have the make and account once and i can log on any of the computers with all my same stuff.

    Server Specs
    2 250 gig seagate HDD in RAID 0
    1 30 gig Westen Digital HDD for OS and programs
    1 gig ddr ram
    MSI Main board
    2.8gig P4
    350 watt antec smartpower supply
    APC smart-ups 750 (keeps my server and network up and running for well over and hour in a black out).

    and about my house burning down i keep a HDD at work with a back up.
    • SDNick484, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting choice to go with RAID 0; I hope you considered that if either drive fails the whole array is destroyed. Also, I hope your network is fully gigabit (including the router), otherwise any added speed you get moving to RAID 0 is lost. Personally for home file servers, if I'm going with RAID I'm using 1 or 5, now a workstation is a different story...
  • kyote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've been trying carbonite. Flat rate service plus 3 months free if you click on the radio icon at the top. it's not a bad service at all. monitors the files for changes, stores deleted files for some length of time before deleting them from the backup. you might take a look at that and see what you think. www.carbonite.com (and no, i'm not an employee or getting paid for referrals)
  • ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you are going to only use this for file back ups why not get something like a NAS?
    http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=BROWSE&N=200790+402830&Ne=200000&product_code=331988&Pn=SC101_Storage_Central_Network_Attached_Storage

    Just snap in the drives and you're good to go!

    Odds are that using one of these^^ is alot cheaper than building your own server. (especially if this is a home network.)
  • dotcom101010, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ SDNick484,
    I keep a full backup at work i do the back-up once a week. Yes my network is fully gigabit including the router.
    • patangay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dotcom101010

      sooo much trouble, backup every week moving the hd back and forth from work?

      S3 is such a better solution, run a cron job once a night, and you are done!
  • RogueAI, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those who are married or who by other need have two or more machines at home that need backing up, the cheapest way by far is to simply back each machine up onto an extra partition on one of the other machines. This way each machine backs up another machine, you don't have any extra hardware to buy or pay electricity for, and these key machines are the ones you're likely to grab from the house if it ever catches on fire.
    • golgo13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Somehow I doubt you'll be worried about your computer in the event of a fire. If this is the level of care you're going to take I would suggest something that is slightly more complicated but does provide much more security. Buy two external drives and back up both machines. Take one to work, leave one at home and every few days switch them out. It's not much, but I think its a better solution.
  • raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2S3 isn't an option for home because of uplink for 99.8% of the population.

    Otherwise I'd do it in a heartbeat. Offsite redundant backup? Awesome.
  • diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would worry too much about my data being handed over to the "Kinder, Gentler Fascism" we have today. They will not even need a warrant for a data center, just a bobble-head manager to let them in the door. With the patriot act, they would likely never tell you that they have a full copy of your data in which crack off site. Now, I do not have anything that top secret, but giving up that much control makes me uncomfortable.
  • hansivers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great thread! Since I didnt't read any description fitting my own home backup setup, you will here some new suggestions I hope it may help somebody outhere..

    I have to backup about 50GB daily, for which about 0 to 500MB is new/modified stuff. So, I set up a linux home server with Samba, and I synchronize my Windows laptop with SyncExpert (only modified/new files are mirrored). It's very fast on 100Mbits LAN.

    However, this home server is synchronized once a day with an remote Linux server via SSH using rsync. Thus, only file changes or new files are compressed and sent via DSL to the remote server. The first time I setup the remote server, I just plugged it on my home LAN and did a full copy of the 50GB between the home and the remote servers. After the initial setup, I move the remove server at my office and the remote server connect once a day to my home server using a SSH public key to synchronize itself.

    It's cheap, it's secure (data are encrypted and I have a remote backup in case of fire), it's automated, the uploads/downloads never exceed 500MB per month on my DSL connection and I have COMPLETE control over all the hardware and setup.

    It's the optimal setup I found for my needs.
  • udha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds like the Pinetree backup place.
  • KIERANMULLEN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Reported story as not accurate. Article fails to mention the 5 GB lmit that amazons faq clearly states. So the authors ramblings about backing up replacing entire hard drives is not possible.... unless you have a P1 computer with a 5 GB drive in it.
  • mplsboy6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why would he say the cpu and drives are $1400. When I last checked, I bought a 300 gig hard drive for under a hundred bucks, and the server would just be for backups, so you use an old computer running Linux. He's overstating the cost of a home backup system. I think he works for Amazon.

    That being said, offsite storage is cool. I would pay to store backups offsite, but I don't really do that much at home that I can't store on DVD's. There are free services that will store my tiny (relative) bit of data.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.